Slashdot Mirror
PS Vita TV's Killer App: Remote Play
jfruh writes "When Sony announced the PS Vita TV yesterday, most observers saw it as competition for the Apple TV and Roku, or maybe the Ouya. But gaming writer Peter Smith views it differently; he thinks that remote play, including the ability to stream games from the upcoming PlayStation 4 console, will be the Vita TV's killer-app. In that sense, it isn't so much a low-cost replacement for casual gamers as an add-on to the high-end PS4. '[W]hen you're in the middle of a game and someone wants to watch TV, you can just grab a Vita and keep on playing. (This is similar to the popular "tablet play" feature of Nintendo's Wii U, without the Wii U's limitation of having to stay in close proximity to the base console.) ... For any Playstation 4 household with more than one TV I think the PS Vita TV will become a 'must-have' accessory; it's almost like getting a second PS4 for $100.'"
Mirroring a general purpose computing environment and being able to play your dedicated gaming device on a separate screen are not quite the same thing.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
I'm wondering a bit about the "playing PS4 games" part in regards to the controller. The PS4 controller has a touchpad that the Dualshock 3 doesn't have - I suppose as long as games don't make it integral to the gameplay it will work, otherwise, not so much unless/until the Vita TV supports the new controller...
Not at all. ChromeCast is a very different beast than miracast/ariwhatever....: the content is *not* streamed from the master to the slave, but *pointed at and handed off*. The slave then directly connects to the server, the master then can even be switched off with no consequences.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
[W]hen you're in the middle of a game and someone wants to watch TV, you can just grab a Vita and keep on playing.
The way the summary is written implies that you need a Vita TV to stream to a Vita, but you don't. What the article actually says is that, instead of streaming direct to a Vita, you could instead stream to a Vita TV connected to another TV.
I can see "Vita" and "Vita TV" causing a lot of customer confusion.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Uhh, my PSP was able to do this with my PS3. What's new, here?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
It seems pretty dumb to release a box to play Vita or PS4 games that has a controller that can't even replicate most or all of the control surfaces. The Vita even has a rear touch pad though it's probably the front one that matters most. The Vita TV could draw a little circle to indicate where the user is touching on the screen.
'it's almost like getting a second hdmi cable for $100.'
Tomorrow is another day...
The PS3 is well known for crippled DLNA that does not even accept push as a client, typical Sony crippleware device. So if I take my cell and try to push a pic or a vid to it, it is essentially useless. Sure I can pick up the controller and browse to a DLNA server and then just maybe if the server is written by the Google summer of code guys I just might be able to view my videos and picks but only by browsing to them on the device which sucks big time
Sorry but the crippled DLNA of both the Xbox and the PS3 makes them essentially just what they are toys, not great devices with a future in my living room. Until Microshaft and Sony realize the full potential of these devices and stop crippling what they are easily capable of doing at a software level with DLNA, Samsung smart tvs will keep invading more and more living rooms because they are more capable than these toys! Making users pay another 100 bucks for crippled gimmick screen mirror device like Apple TV is not selling me on Sony products.
Right now I am using a GNU UPNP AV Control Point on my laptop to push to a Samsung while I type this, heck I can even pause and replay or control the TV volume through push DLNA. SONY AND MICROSOFT are missing the boat big time and Samsung is starting to eat their breakfast in the home entertainment field and for good reason!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Such a shame that Nintendo didn't learn from how quickly the Wiimote was copied by their competitors that gimmicks can be quickly copied and nullified as competitive advantages. The Wii U is a really nice console, but they just don't have a clue how to take on Sony and Microsoft...
> but it has better controls for certain types of games
but it has better controls for SOME types of games.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
I don't see OtherOS removal as a problem, sorry, call me selfish, but I'm way more concerned about attempt by its competitor, to enforce digital only games.
There was hardly anyone who was affected by this. Those who bought device for Other OS didn't need to upgrade the firmware, those who bought it for games, couldn't care less about Other OS.
Those who bought device for Other OS didn't need to upgrade the firmware
Stop saying that, it wasn't an option. My PS3 was updated when my cousin put in a RENTED BluRay. I bought the PS3 for the Other OS along with the ability to play games AND watch BluRays. I paid more for it because of that and was later given the option to use Other OS exclusively XOR games and BluRays. I paid for all of the functionality. What was the PS3 slogan again? Oh yeah, "It only does everything!".
Oh you only bought that V8 car to drive? Well it's been two years so I guess we can replace the engine with V2. Guess you won't need the radio, air conditioner, power seats, windows, locks, etc... here's your soap box racer have fun.
In any case this isn't a which is better PS4 or XBone, this is a case of which isn't the worst and there is a third option. Just don't get either. Shows both companies we don't approve of any of their the anti-consumer behavior, whether it's removing features or DRM-lock-in-always-on-piece-of-shit.
There's no question IMHO that PCs have the better controls for ALL games.
No.
Yes, that is my opinion. You can argue, but you don't get to dictate what I do and do not believe.
Have you
I've played plenty of RTS games with a controller back in the NES and SNES days, keyboard and mouse is superior. They don't seem to make very many RTS games for consoles these days, Hmmm I wonder why?
or are you just spouting what you think is true because you're one of those "PC Master Race" people.
I'm not one of those "PC Master Race" people, I have several consoles including an Ouya, PS, PS2, PS3, Wii, SNES, NES, XBox (original). I do find PC, especially a good laptop with an emulator is a better all-in-one solution, it's portable and has the mouse & keyboard or controller option, but I guess if your one of the console fanbois that wouldn't matter anyway.
You did know that Final Fantasy XI
I've played FFXI on both PS3 and PC. PC is far superior. On top of the keyboard being better than the controller for hot keys, the keyboard is pretty much essential for text chat, which I find better for communicating that a headset, but that's a different argument.
You know why PC FPS players like mice? Easy headshots
Yeah, they had to implement "assisted lock on" for console controllers in order for PC and console players to play together because a mouse was just too accurate when compared to a controller.
Sorry, but them's the facts.